This has been a quite stupendous mission. The sheer numbers involved are spectacular, and it's one of my favourite examples to use in elucidating how science progresses, albeit one that I initially borrowed from a very good friend of ours.

Science deniers will often harp on about how science is constantly changing, generally with little understanding of what form those changes take (or the fact that, far from being a weakness, this is its greatest strength), and this is a beautiful example.

This mission went on a journey of 15x1011 kilometres, including four gravitational slingshot manoeuvres, parked within 20 metres of its intended orbit , and all this was done with an incorrect theory described by an incorrect law. The difference between Newtonian gravity and general relativity at such scales and speeds is so small that, even over 15x1011 kilometres, the error amounts to 20 metres!

The data provided by this mission have been incredible, and promise to take decades to sort through. One can only describe it as an unparalleled success, and that's without even bothering to compare it to parochial bullshit like deities.

hackenslash wrote:Science deniers will often harp on about how science is constantly changing, generally with little understanding of what form those changes take (or the fact that, far from being a weakness, this is its greatest strength), and this is a beautiful example.

It's the kind of canard that shows they're running in autopilot. Of course science keeps 'changing' - because it's actually discovering and amassing knowledge that we didn't possess before. No human process or method has ever even got close to the knowledge-generation of science.

hackenslash wrote:This mission went on a journey of 15x1011 kilometres, including four gravitational slingshot manoeuvres, parked within 20 metres of its intended orbit , and all this was done with an incorrect theory described by an incorrect law. The difference between Newtonian gravity and general relativity at such scales and speeds is so small that, even over 15x1011 kilometres, the error amounts to 20 metres!

Nicely put! The relativity of wrong.

hackenslash wrote:The data provided by this mission have been incredible, and promise to take decades to sort through. One can only describe it as an unparalleled success, and that's without even bothering to compare it to parochial bullshit like deities.

There can be no comparison: science broadens our horizons and puts those horizons into our grasp, while religion directs us ever deeper into our belly buttons hypnotizing us to believe that we already know everything we need to.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Beyond everything hackenslash pointed out, Cassini is also one of the dozens of space crafts powered by decaying atoms. We understand this process so well, it powers space craft.

But but but....

To keep this thread free of idiocy, I'll add a source of NASA's explanation to that:

RTGs are lightweight, compact spacecraft power systems that are extraordinarily reliable. RTGs are not nuclear reactors and have no moving parts. They use neither fission nor fusion processes to produce energy. Instead, they provide power through the natural radioactive decay of plutonium (mostly Pu-238, a non-weapons-grade isotope). The heat generated by this natural process is changed into electricity by solid-state thermoelectric converters

I've already seen the first claims that Cassini actually doesn't exist or NASA is hiding something because we didn't get a live video feed of it plunging into the Saturnian atmosphere. People are silly.

Anyways, RIP to one of the most successful space mission of the last decade.